Essay About Characterization Of Rosencrantz And Tom Stoppard

The Characterization of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern from Shakespeare’s HamletEssay Preview: The Characterization of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern from Shakespeare’s HamletReport this essayBut we both obey, / And here give up ourselves in the full bent / To lay our service freely at your feet / To be commanded. (Ham. 2. 2. 29-32)When examining the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, it is important to question the characteristics that define them. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern hold minor roles in the overall dynamic of the play. However, the interaction between these two characters suggests that they hold more importance to the play than originally perceived. Tom Stoppard, a playwright from the 1960s, recognized the significance of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and decided to give them lead roles in his play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Stoppard’s play follows the story of Hamlet but adds some absurd twists in order to make it lighthearted and funny despite its serious undertone. The characteristics and mindset behind the actions of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would determine whether or not the characters transcend time. There are multiple interpretations of the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern within the overall plot of Hamlet; these characterizations unite the two plays and reveal the similarities between the different eras in which they were written.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern initially seem to be one person with two voices, but when analyzed more thoroughly, they have individual personalities that enhance the plot of both Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. When these two characters are introduced in Hamlet, they seem to be of one mind. The King and Queen combine the two men, illustrated by the King who says, “Thanks, Rosencrantz and gentle Guildenstern”, and the Queen’s following response, “Thanks, Guildenstern and gentle Rosencrantz” (Ham. 2.2.33-34). Also, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tend to complete one another’s thoughts. This can be seen when the two men check in with the King and Queen. The Queen asks, “Did he receive you well?” (3.1.10), and Rosencrantz replies that Hamlet received them, “Most like a gentlemen”, followed by Guildenstern’s statement, “But with much forcing of his disposition” (3.1.11-12). Shakespeare’s phrasing merges Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s thoughts and ideas, making them seem irrationally codependent and therefore foolish. In Shakespeare’s play, the men are not individualistic.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead delves deeper into their individual personalities. This provides more insight into the two characters and enhances their interpretation in Hamlet. By looking at how Rosencrantz and Guildenstern converse with each other, their characteristics are expressed through the dialogue. Rosencrantz is seemingly ridiculous and illogical, while Guildenstern aspires to be rational. In the first scene of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the two men are flipping coins. The stage directions indicate that “the run of ‘heads’ is impossible, yet Ros[encrantz] betrays no surprise at all…Guil[denstern] is well alive to the oddity of it…aware but not going to panic about it” (Stoppard 11). The stage directions provide strong evidence to how Stoppard intends for the characters to be perceived. These personality traits are also expressed through the examination of their lines. Guildenstern has long pieces of dialogue that often have deductive reasoning or intellectual concepts expressed. For example, when discussing the law of probability, Guildenstern creates a syllogism declaring that “One, probability is a factor which operates within natural forces. Two, probability is not operating as a factor. Three, we are now within un-, sub-, or supernatural forces” (17). In contrast, Rosencrantz’s dialogue is brief and instantaneous, as if said without thinking. Immediately following the above syllogism, Rosencrantz replies with “I’m sorry I—What’s the matter with you?”, and allows Guildenstern to essentially host a one-sided conversation (17). These characteristics are not as distinct in Hamlet. However, Shakespeare’s original codependent personality traits are still apparent through the quick-witted conversations and games the two men host. For instance, after meeting with the King and Queen, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have one of these exchanges when they decide that they “could play at questions” and proceed to create a game of hurling questions at each other in a rapid conversation (42). The game shows how synchronized the two men are and demonstrates their dependency on each other. Stoppard does not separate the characters from their original play; rather, he enhances the qualities that are muted in Hamlet.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead highlights their naïve characteristics, whereas Hamlet is vague about how their conduct should be interpreted. The distinction in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s interpretation is important because it reflects on their overall morality. Fleming analyzed the style of Stoppard’s theatre and expresses that Stoppard creates “multiple levels on which the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern operate” because they are more dynamic than they are in Hamlet (Fleming 53). Stoppard portrays the characters with the overarching idea that they are gullible and innocent. While he gives them specific personality traits, the combination of these traits creates absurd situations that eventually come to place them in a tragic situation because they do not fully comprehend the gravity of the circumstances. Morgan notes that he “cannot find one line in all of Hamlet that is definite, conclusive evidence that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern acted from any motives other than those of pure friendship”, showing that Stoppard’s play supports this interpretation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet (396).

The absurd nature of Stoppard’s play indicates that these two men do not have any ulterior motives regarding this summons by the king. The opening scene of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead begins with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tossing coins, which is extremely unusual and seems pointless, as indicated by the stage directions (Stoppard 11). However, the purpose of the scene is eventually revealed to be that King Claudius has summoned the characters. The scene expresses that some of the most absurd moments have an embedded significance. The absurdity is not pointless because its connection to the larger plot of Hamlet allows Stoppard to go “beyond another ‘dis-Unity’ of Absurdist drama: plotlessness” (Freeman 20). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are clearly acting for the purpose of helping their friend and are in no way trying to double cross him. Shakespeare also introduces the idea that they have a foolish and naïve air. They admit to Hamlet that they “were sent for”

The irony of the episode is that they are so uninterested in the main plot that they simply make Hamlet seem stupid. In fact, it is actually quite funny to watch them do this: only on a brief and insignificant note, all three characters have been played, and played together in a mere three minutes (Stoppard 11:10). This is very surprising and shows that they might understand one another very well, but they still do not understand each other. One problem, perhaps, is that the scene that shows two characters with three limbs but only two (Hamlet 5:39) and the two with two legs only appears in the third episode. The third episode of The Complete Shakespeare Company does not contain any sequence of the three characters’ limbs, but there are at least two lines. The actors of Hamlet and Guildenstern do not seem stupid and it is understandable that they think that.

The characters of Hamlet have a complex life as they are all actors who, like Stoppard and Rosencrantz, are very curious and sensitive. They think they are so lucky because they are living something like this, and, therefore, it is not in their interest to learn anything more about it. There aren’t many important roles that they want to try, so there is nothing they can do to help them to solve it, but their efforts on the part of the actors is very important. They are almost universally successful, but unfortunately for these two, the roles they are given in Hamlet are rather rare.

There is, however, a scene in which they find a man with a gun and it indicates that they might try to use that to save their friends. Hamlet’s own response is to stand on both sides of his desk and try to shoot the man. In response to this scene, one of the three actors who played the character tells him:

“Did you see that?”

Hamlet takes another look at the object of his scorn. He is confused and says to them: “I understand your question,” but says nothing or stops answering. The three characters follow him to the next room and ask him:

“What do you mean by that?”

The man replies:

“To take my guns. The gun is your friend. You ought to know how it works by now. What do you think I’ve just said?”

The man continues, saying another thing. The three characters tell the man: “Well, you can shoot me. There is never a good chance. ” ”

“Okay, you’ll do well,” said the man.

The three characters continue to ask about whether the gun works, and so forth. The character says “I suppose so.” They begin to follow the man to a room together.

The room begins to turn yellow. They see another man talking to the object. They think that he has the gun, but they can look behind him and see nothing. A third man approaches and asks him what he is about to ask him. Hamlot replies:

“My friend, you can do so. I will not let you hurt the men.”

At this point, the men tell the other three actors and ask them, clearly in surprise, whether they might use firearms.

There is an abrupt end. Hamlot seems to lose all his calm, but the scene still seems a bit strange. Yet he still seems to be in good spirits. The three characters have an unusual relationship at first, they do not seem to mind how things are going and have gotten accustomed to living. They are in no mood to become